Where in the constitution dose it state that you are required by law to pay income taxes?

Someone gave me an answer according to the IRS I am talking about the constitution.By what amendment?

Interesting... everything I had posted before is suddenly missing (I'm sure it's because it was just too long, as when I try to re-post it, it won't show up). Good thing I have it saved as a Word Doc. Anyone who wants a copy can e-mail me at solarcide@yahoo.com. Unlike some people, I'm not afraid of a good debate, and will accept e-mails. Well, here's what I was adding to it.

I actually have two legs to stand on. I love it when someone results to labelling an entire point of view as ridiculous just because he has no further logical arguments to throw against it. And to say that you "have the Constitution and over 200 years of case law on my side" is simply not being truthful, You don't have the Constitution on "your side", you have one amendment which was unjustly ratified. You never once addressed my points about the fallen Checks and Balances, which are the main cause of this injustice. You need look no further than the current scandals in the Justice Department to see why some case law would support your viewpoint. The lawyers and judges know better than to bite the hand that feeds them. It's still against the best interest of the American People, and it is still unjust and against the intent of our Forefathers when they created the Constitution as a guard against corrupt and unfair government practices. I believe I have addressed all of your points. Why did you not address mine, instead trying to demean my point of view by labeling it as ridiculous? This suggests to me that you have grown frusterated, as you have no further valid points, and have no valid argument against the points that I have brought forth, instead resorting to labels such as "frivolous tax protestor arguments". In fact, you're acting like I'm speaking out against your religion, saying things like no matter what evidence you show me, I won't see the truth. Show me some credible evidence that the 16th Amendment didn't take away our Constitutional right to be protected from unfair direct taxation, that doesn't involve case judgements corrupted by a failure in the Checks and Balances, and I'll happily concede.

The case that you're talking about on which two framers of the Constitution presided, Hylton v. United States, concerned a tax on carriages, not on income. It has nothing what so ever to do with this, as a tax on carriages is not a direct tax, anymore than a tax on title transfers are today. Income tax is still a direct tax, as I've already proven to you through definitions of "Direct Tax". as well as the definitions of "excise" and "duty". If all of your "cases" are equally valid, then I understand why you're growing tired of this debate. You'll have to come up with something better than that. I understand that as an accountant your livelihood most likely relies on these unjust practices, but that doesn't make you right, and no amount of claiming to be right will make it so. Unfortunately I don't have time to continue this tonight. I'll look forward to more of your "evidence" tomorrow.

You're just talking in circles, and providing "evidence" that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I never claimed that Congress didn't have the authority to levy taxes, just that a tax on Wages is a Direct Tax and therefore unconstitutional, as I've stated at least three times, and have demonstrated through providing definitions. The Checks and Balances are not working, but there's really no room to debate that in this limited forum. Most of the cases that you have provided don't even deal with an income tax on wages, so I suspect that you are throwing these in there in an attempt to look knowledgable, but are failing to provide substance to your arguments. The one that does, the Springer decision, dealt with the 1862 income tax, which was enacted to fund the Civil War, which goes back to what I was saying about the government using war to rob us of our rights and freedoms. Before the ratification of the 16th, there were a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909 (some of which you have provided, some of which you have convienently neglected to mention). "In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax" - http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html#Am16.
"The text of the [16th] Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes, from salary or from real estate, are explicitly to be treated as indirect" - http://www.answers.com/topic/springer-v-united-states . As I said... they warped the meaning of the word in order to take away the right of honest Americans to fight the direct tax placed upon their wages, by saying that the argument is irrelevent. Again, this goes against what our Forefathers intended, and is an unjust, unfair practice, and goes against the wording and spirit of Article 1, Section 9 - Limits on Congress. The fact that Congress was allowed to remove its own Constitutional Limitation and was backed up by the Judicial Branch suggests a lack of the proper functioning of the Checks and Balances.

But we could go on like this forever. As long as you have a vested interest in the current system, you will keep throwing irrelevant cases into the debate in an attempt to confuse the issues. That's fine, I'm done with you. This isn't the proper forum for this type of debate. I wish you well in all that you do.

The Constitution doesn't say you must pay income taxes. However, the Constitution did give Congress the power to lay and collect taxes in Article 1 Section 8 which states:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

In Article 1 Section 9 it states,
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

This is where people get confused. People mistakenly believe that income taxes are direct taxes, but in a Constitutional sense, they are not. The Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916) said, "by the previous ruling [in Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged".

The Supreme Court in the 1895 Pollock decision actually got the Constitutional intent wrong. The court even said they might be mistaken in their opinion. Here is a quote from that opinion. "a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes. Nevertheless, it may be admitted that, although this definition of direct taxes is prima facie correct, and to be applied in the consideration of the question before us, yet the constitution may bear a different meaning, and that such different meaning must be recognized."

After the Pollock decision, Congress enacted, passed and the states ratified the 16th amendment. The 16th amendment removed the argument that income taxes are direct taxes because even if a person or court considers them direct, the 16th amendment provides Congress the power to lay and collect them without apportionment as required by Article 1 Section 9.

Based upon the powers given to Congress by the Constitution, Congress passes laws to use those powers and capabilities. One of those laws is the Internal Revenue Code which is codified in the US Code as Title 26.

To the person who believes the income tax was started to pay for WWI, you are wrong. The first income tax in the U.S. was actually passed in 1861. The Internal Revenue Service was started in 1862. The first income tax law was allowed to lapse in 1872. There were various other income tax laws passed between 1872 and 1895 until the Pollock decision. When the 16th amendment was passed, Congress enacted the Internal Revenue Act of 1913. Since the U.S. didn't enter WWI until 1917, how can the income tax have been started to pay for the war?

EDIT: The 16th amendment is not unconstitutional. It was ratified and has been upheld by the courts ever since. Once it became a ratified amendment, it is part of the Constitution and therefore can't be unconstitutional. The only way to remove it is to repeal it, which would have to be initiated by Congress, passed, sent to the states for ratification and then ratified by the proper number of states. Then, the Secretary of State would have to declare the amendment to repeal the 16th amendment ratified.

Also, a dictionary may call an income tax a direct tax, but as I pointed out earlier in my answer, the courts have declared that an income tax is an INDIRECT tax in the Constitutional sense. Also, since there were several income tax laws before the passage of the 16th amendment, that makes it fairly clear that income taxes were allowed by the Constitution. Also, there was only ONE Supreme Court that ever declared an income tax unconstitutional and as I pointed out, they even questioned whether they had the constitutional intent correct. BTW, the Pollock decision was on income derived from property, in other words rental income. It never even discussed the income tax on wages.

Here are a couple of other court opinions concerning taxes.
In Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), the Supreme Court was unanimous in its opinion that Congress could impose a tax on a citizen of Virginia for carriages held for personal use and that the tax was an excise or duty and not â€œdirect.â€ Of the four justices who heard the case, two (William Paterson and James Wilson) were members of the Constitutional Convention that drafted the Constitution, and presumably knew what it meant.

In Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an income tax against an individual, William H. Springer, finding that the income tax was a constitutional â€œduty or exciseâ€ and not a â€œdirect tax.â€

ROFLMAO, Solar, just because you claim it to be unconstitutional doesn't make it so. 200 years of court opinions except for ONE, have declared that income taxes are indirect in a Constitutional sense. Also, as I said, since the 16th amendment was ratified making it part of the Constitution, income taxes do not have to be apportioned even if they are called direct. Besides, even if a tax on employees for the wages they receive could be defined as a â€œdirect taxâ€, but if the U.S. were to impose a tax on employers for wages paid (or a tax on banks for the payment of interest, or on corporations for the payment of dividends), that would be an â€œindirect taxâ€ and constitutional, even though the net effect would be exactly the same.

Edit: I'm through arguing with you Solar. I've pointed out several times that throughout the history of our country, not just recent times, the courts and Congress have consistently applied income taxes as indirect. Anyway, your "16th amendment is unconstitutional" is just plain ridiculous. Since the amendment was ratified, it is now a part of the Constitution.

Edit: You say to show you some credible evidence that doesn't involve corruption of checks and balances. You fail to see that no matter what I bring forth, that you'll just claim it is a corruption of checks and balances. There is no proof that there even is a corruption of checks and balances going back 120 to 200 years, yet that is what you claim. Anyway, Hylton decision did concern carriages but it is relevant because it shows that Congress had the power to collect a tax from citizens. Justice Patterson (one of the members of the Constitutional convention) had this to say, "It was, however, obviously the intention of the framers of the Constitution, that Congress should possess full power over every species of taxable property, except exports. The term taxes, is generical, and was made use of to vest in Congress plenary authority in all cases of taxation." Also, the Springer decision, in 1880 which upheld the income tax act of 1864 which was a tax on â€œthe annual gains, profits, or income of every person residing in the United States, or any citizen of the United States residing abroad, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interests, dividends, salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation, carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever....". In Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533, 543 (1869) the Supreme Court states â€œThis review shows that personal property, contracts, occupations, and the like, have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax.â€ Notice that all cases cited in this last edit are from 1880 and before. This is to show that your argument that the income tax is somehow unconstitutional is specious. The 16th amendment only came into being because of the erroneous Pollock decision. Besides the Pollock decision only discussed the issue of rental income and income from personal property. It did not discuss the income tax on wages.

Dose? It dose not...er... I mean it does not say it that way.

The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution is the enabling document. It states that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

This is the source and the the legal basis for the tax laws. The Constitution does not set forth the laws, it merely gives Congress the authority to write the laws.

Where in the constitution does it say that if I run a red light I can be given a ticket?

not everything is covered explicitly in the constitution. however, congress is given the power to raise monies to support the government

Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The sixteenth amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The 16th amendment to the constitution was ratified in 1913. It states that congress has the authority to lay and collect taxes on income. It's been the law ever since.

"We the people in order to form a more perfect union..." That states that the undersigned and those they represent are forming a government. This should convey to you or anyone seeking protection or relief under the Constitution that it will take financial resources to create and operate this government.

The Constitution further sets out the three branches of government, their duties and responsibilities. Here again any person with even low intelligence should understand that this will require financial resources.

The Constitution calls for the election of a congress to enact the laws to operate this government. These laws must be approved by the elected president and found to be Constitutional by the courts.

Our elected congress chose to raise these needed financial resources through the sale of land and various taxes, rather than setting up a lemonade stand at the borders.

Constitution forms the government, we elect the representatives and they say pay taxes. What more do you need?

Pay your taxes or move somewhere that does not finance its government through income taxes, like say China or North Korea.

The Constitution also doesn't state what reasons to go to war or that we can stop people at our borders or that we can launch a space station. The Constitution doesn't say anything about abortion, native hunting rights, the need for a fishing license or driver's license, or the creation of the Coast Guard, National Guard, Air Guard or Boy Scouts.

Pay your share or move out, pretty simple.

I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be in the Constitution. The Constitution is to protect the rights of citizens. It is not laws and such; it's your rights.

It does not its in the artical 10 of the united states COde

Just because something is the law, doesn't mean it's in the constitution. Some people make arguments that because it's not in the constitution, then they don't have to pay income taxes. I think that if you don't pay all your taxes, then you don't deserve to use roads, electricity, water or gas sent through municipal lines, public schools, the court system, or anything else paid for by the government.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment:

Archive: Forum -Forum -Finance - Links - 1 - 2 - RSS - All RSS Feeds
The Causes and the Results. 0.054
Copyright (c) 2011 Financial Crisis Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - Terms of use - Privacy Policy